Oak Ridge officers file for court action against city

Monday

Jan 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM

A former Oak Ridge police sergeant and three current sergeants have filed a petition against the city of Oak Ridge, its officials and the city's Personnel Advisory Board after a grievance they filed over pay was denied by city officials in September.

by Beverly Majors

A former Oak Ridge police sergeant and three current sergeants have filed a petition against the city of Oak Ridge, its officials and the city's Personnel Advisory Board after a grievance they filed over pay was denied by city officials in September.

The four are seeking review of the city's denial of their grievance and the decision of the Advisory Board to recommend the denial. They are also asking that the city reverse its decision to deny the grievance. The petition also asks for salary adjustments.

Recently retired Sgt. Phil Nall, who initiated the grievance, along with sergeants Pete Nance, Cartel Webb and Robert Pitts, who signed the grievance in agreement, filed the petition for certiorari in November and an amended writ of certiorari in late December.

A petition for certiorari basically seeks an order by a higher court directing a lower court or public authority for a discretionary judicial review.

The issue will now go before the Chancery Court in Anderson County for a decision.

No court date has been set.

The original grievance was filed with the city of Oak Ridge in February 2012, after two ORPD detectives were promoted to the rank of sergeant in January and received a 10 percent pay increase.

The sergeants' argument is that the detectives had received a 10 percent pay increase when they were promoted to the rank of detective and with the new rank came the additional raise, subsequently making their pay grade higher — about $5,500 per year — than the senior sergeants' pay grade.

The senior sergeants petition states: "It is our opinion that, in this instance, the compensation plan has created internal inequity in a manner that cannot be rationally justified and should be corrected."

According to the city's order after the original grievance hearing, the argument centered around the discrepancy in pay not being fair and equitable, and cited a requirement in the city Personnel Ordinance to adjust the pay plan when "there is clear evidence that such adjustment is necessary to meet the policies outlined."

The city's order stated the Personnel Ordinance was followed in the promotions of the two new sergeants and said "discrepancies in pay within a job title exist in various departments of the city — not just with sergeants — and are a result of employees' various experience, past merit increases, longevity, promotions, and other factors such as overlap in pay ranges for job classifications."

The recently promoted sergeants were at or near the top of their pay grade as detectives, which then placed them at or near the top of the sergeant's pay grade. The maximum pay for a sergeant is $55,556 and the pay rate of the recently promoted detectives, because of the earlier 10 percent pay hike, is $61,235 at the maximum pay grade.

The grievance also raised questions about other employees, including two sergeants, who received pay adjustments under similar circumstances. The order, however, stated city records indicate the pay increase for those employees was not to address "any discrepancy" nor to match another employee's pay rate.

After consideration of all the evidence in the grievance, the Advisory Board voted 5-0 to dismiss the grievance.